Guilt from prejudice-standards violation occurs only in people committed to nonprejudiced values

Evidence

Although Allport assumed that the essayists who reported inconsistencies between their “reason and their prejudice” experienced compunction, this assumption was first tested directly by Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, and Elliot (1991). Their empirical strategy was to assess how people who vary in self-reported level of prejudice believe they should respond in interpersonal situations involving minority group members, and how they actually would respond in these same situations. On average, low-prejudice people believe that they should not feel uncomfortable sitting next to an African American on a bus, but that they likely would. … When actual responses were discrepant from people’s personal standards, Devine et al. (1991) found that low-prejudice people experienced compunction but high-prejudice people did not. Moreover, the greater the violation of nonprejudiced standards, the more guilt low-prejudice people reported. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2104

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to cognitive-dissonance research and to Milgram’s ‘ordinary people’ obedience line — transgression guilt requires internalized standards. — connects to: Federal contractor guidelines permit antidiscrimination violations under sincere-belief claims — Katherine Stewart, The Power Worshippers: Inside the…, 948; Only people with internalized nonprejudiced standards feel guilt over their actual prejudiced responses — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2106